Summaries of Judgments, AdvNot an official documents of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
CASECONCERNINGPASSAGT EHROUGH THEGREATBELT
(FINLAND v,DENMARK) (PROVISIONAL MEASURES)
Order of 29
In an Order made inthe case concerningthe Passage Rules ofCourt, by whichit requestedthe Courtto indicate
through the Great Belt (Finlandv. Denmark) the Court thefollowing provisional measures:
found, unanimously, thatthe circumstarices,as they pre- "(1) Denmarkshould, pending the decisionby the
sentedthemselves to theCourt, werenot suchas to require Courton the meritsof thepresentcase, refrain fromcon-
the exerciseof its power underArticlel of the Statuteto tinuing or otherwiseproceeding with suchconstruction
indicateprovisional measures. worksinconnection with the planned bridge projcter
TheCourtwascomposedasfollows:PresidentSirRobert the East Channelof the GreatBelt as wouldimpedethe
Yewdall Jennings; Vice-PresidentShigeru Oda; Judges: passageofships;,includingdrill shipsandoilrigs, to and
Manfred Lachs, Roberto Ago, Stephen M. Schwebel, from Finnishportsandshipyards;
MohammedBedjaoui,Ni Zhengyu, JensEvensen,Nikoldi "(2) Denmarkshould refrain from any other action
Tarassov, GilbertGuillaume, Mohamed Shahabuddeen, thatmightprejudice theoutcomeof the present proceed-
Andrds Aguilar Mawdsley,Christopher IG.Weeramantry, ing."
RaymondRanjeva; Judges ad hoc PaulFischerand Bengt On 28 June 19!)1Denmark filedin the Registryof the
Broms. Court itswrittenobservationson therequestforprovisional
JudgeTarassovappended adeclarationtmheOrderofthe measuresandrequested theCourt
Court.
Vice-ResidentODA, JudgeShahabuddeenandJudgead Finlandforano~derofprovisional measuresberejected.
hoc Bromsappendedseparate opinionsto the Orderof the
Court. "(2) Inthealternative,andintheeventthat theCourt
shouldgrant theRequestin wholeor in part, to indicate
that Finlandshalundertaketo compensate Denmarkfor
my andalllossesincurredincomplyingwithsuchprovi-
sionalmeasures,shouldtheCourtrejectFinland'submis-
sionsonthe merits".
InitsOrder,theCourtrecallsthaton 17bfay 1991Finland At public hearings held from1to 5 July 1991 theCourt
institutedproceedings against Denmarin respectof a dis- heardoral argument presenteon behalfofthetwoParties.
puteconcerningpassage through thGreatBelt(Storebaelt), Onthequestionofjurisdiction, theCourt,recallingthatit
andtheprojectbythe GovernmentofDenmarktoconstructa oughtnotto indicateprovisionalmeasures unless tpmvi-
fixedtraffic connectionforboth road andrail trafficacrossionsinvokedbytheApplicant appear,primafacie,toafford
theWestandEastChannelsoftheGreat Belt.Theeffectof a basis on whichthe jurisdiction of the Court might be
thisproject,and inparticularof theplanned high-levelsus-founded,noted that Finland foundedthe jurisdictionof the
pensionbridgeovertheEastChannel, woulclbepermanently Court primarily upon declarations made by the Parties
toclosetheBalticfordeepdraughtvesselsofover65metres' acceptingthe compulsoryjurisdictionof the Court,andthat
height,thuspreventingthepassageofsuchclrillshipsandoil ithad beenstatedbyDenmarkthat theCourt'sjurisdictionon
rigsmanufacturedinFinlandasrequiremon:thanthatclear- the meritwasnot indispute. TheCourt concluded thaitnthe
ance. circumstancesofthecaseitwassatisfiedthat t adthepower
The Government of Finland requestedthe Court to toindicateprovisionalmeasures.
adjudgeanddeclare: TherightwhichFinlandsubmitsisentitledtoprotectionis
"(a) That there is arightof freepasage through the therightofpassaget:hrougtheGreatBeltofships, including
GreatBeltwhichappliesto allships enteringandleaving drill shipsandoilrigs;thisrightisof particularimportance
Finnishportsandshipyards; because, accordingtoFinland, theEast ChanneloftheGreat
"(b) That this ritxtendstodrillships,oil rigsand Beltis for certainvessels the only passage-watyo andfrom
reasonablyforeseeableships; the Baltic. Denmark, while acknowledgingthat thereisa
"(c) That theconstructionof a fixedbridgeoverthe rightoffreepassage throughtheDanishStraitsformerchant
Great Beltas currentlyplanned by Denimarkwould be for structuresuptoe170metres high,on the ground,inter
incompatiblewiththerightof passagementionedin sub- alia, that suchtruc~tursre not ships. Denmarkcontends
paragraphs(a)and(b)above; thatnomeasures shouldbegranted becausenotevenaprima
"(d) ThatDenmarkandFinland shouldstartnegotia- faciecasehasbeenmadeoutinfavourofFinland.TheCourt
tions,ingoodfaith,onhowtherightof kt: passage,asset however notes thatheexistenceofarightofFinlandofpas-
outinsubparagraphs(a) t.(c)aboveshalllxguaranteed." sage through theGreatBelt is not challenged,the dispute
On23 ~ai 19-91F, inlandfiledintheRegistryoftheCourt betweenthe Partiesing overitsnatureandextent,andcon-
a request forindicationof provisionalmeasures,ying.on cludesthat sucha disputedrightmay beprotectedbyprovi-
Article41 of the Statuteof the Courtand Article73 of thesional measures. TheCourtobservesthatprcfvisionam l easuiesareonlyjus- action takenpendentelireby a State engagedin a dispute
tifiedifthereisurgencyinthesensethat actionprejudicialto before the Court with anotheSrtatecan haveanyeffectwhat-
the rightsof either partyis lilcelyto be taken beforea finalever asregardsthelegalsituationwhichthe Court iscalled
decisionisgiven.Accordingtotheplannedscheduleforcon- uponto define,andsuchactioncannotimproveitslegal posi-
structionof theEastChannelBridge,nophysical hindrance tionvis-rf-vthatother State.
for thepassage throughtheCireatBelt willoccurbeforethe After observingthat it is for Denmarkto consider the
end of 1994;Denmarkcontendsthat by that time thecase impactwhicha judgment upholdingFinland'sclaimcould
couldhavebeenfinally decidedbytheCourt,sothatnoindi- haveupontheimplementationoftheGreatBeltproject,and
cation of provisionalmeasuresis required. Denmarkalso to decide whetheror to what extent it should accordingly
contends that theconstructic~nof the East ChannelBridge delay or modify that project, and thatt is for Finland to
willhardlyrepresentanyprac:ticalhindranceforthepassing decidewhether ornotto promotereconsiderationofwaysof
of drill shipsand oil rigs, inasmuch asmostof the unitsin enablingdrill shipsand oilrigsto pass through theDanish
questionwillbeabletotakeanothermute,andthe remainder StraitsintheeventthattheCourtshoulddecideagainstit,the
will beableto pass undertheplannedEastChannel Bridgeif Courtstatesthat,pendingadecisionoftheCourton themer-
leftpartly unassembleduntilafterpassageofthebridge. its, any negotiationbetween the Parties with a view to
TheCourthowever notesthattherightclaimedbyFinland achievingadirectandfriendlysettlementis tobewelcomed.
is to passagespecificallythroughthe GreatBelt of its drill In conclusion,the Court declares thatit is clearlyin the
shipsandoilrigs,withoutmodification ordisassembly,inthe interestofbothPartiesthattheirrespectiverightsandobliga-
samewayas such passagehetsbeeneffectedinthepast, and tions be determineddefinitivelyas early as possible, and
observesthatit cannotatthisinterlocutorystageof thepro- therefore it is appropriate that the Cow:, with the co-
ceedingssupposethat interference withthe rightclaimedby operationoftheParties,ensurethatthedecisioo nnthemerits
Finlandmightbejustifiedonthe groundsthat the passage to bereachedwithallpossibleexpedition.
and from the Baltic of dri1.lships and oil.rigs might be JudgeTarassovi,nadeclaration,expresses his preoccupa-
achievedbyothermeans,whichmaymoreoverbe lesscon- tion that Denmark's East Channel Bridge proje ictsocon-
venientormorecostly.The Courtconcludesthati.fconstruc- ceivedthat eveninthe constructionprocess itwouldimpose
tion worksontheEastChanralBridge whichwouldobstruct serious limitationsnot onlyon passagefor Finland through
the rightof passageclaimedwereexpectedtobecarried out theinternationalstrat ftheGreatBeltbuton navigationinto
priortothedecisionoftheCclurtonthemerits,thismightjus- andoutoftheBalticbycraftofallStates.Moreover,its inte-
tify the indicationof provisionalmeasures. Howeverthe grationinawider communications planwouldrenderiteven
Court, placingon record thc:assurancesgivenby Denmark less amenableto modificationif Finland were to win the
that no physicalobstructionof the East Channel willoccur case.
onthemeritsinthe presentocasewould,intht:normalcourse, JudgeTarassovsees the Order'smain significancein its
be completedbefore that time, finds that it has not been reflectionoftheCourt's intentiotoforestallthefaitaccom-
shownthat the rightclaimetiwill be infringedby construc- pli thal:couldbe createdby anyacceleratedexecutionof an
tionworkduringthe pendencyoftheproceedings;. unmodifiedproject. He analyses those paragraphswhich
emphasizethat intention,andwhichaloneenabled him, like
Finlandclaimsmoreover thattheDanishprojectisalready theotherjudges, to concludethat thecircumstancesdid not
causingdamageto tangible economic interestsinasmuchas requirethe immediate indicatioof specialprovisionalmeas-
Finnish shipyardscan no longer fully participatein tenders ures.
regardingvesselswhichwouldbe unabletopass through the JudgeTarassovisfurtheroftheopinionthat the reference
GreatBeltaftercompletionofthe East Channel Bridge, and to negotiationsshould have taken thformof a straightfor-
thattheexistenceofthe bridgeprojectishaving andwill con- wardcallto seeka technicalmethod ofensuringthecontinu-
tinueto havea negative effcztonthebehaviourof potential anceof freepassageas inthepast betweentheKattegat and
Courtmfinds thatproof ofthe damage alleged,hhas not been theBaltic,and believesthat the Court hadpowerto recom-
supplied. mendthat thePartiesinvitetheparticipationofexperts from
thirdcountriesorproceedundertheaegisoftheInternational
Finlandobservesfurtherthattheinter-relatio'betweenthe MaritimeOrganization.
variouselementsof the Great Belt project hasas a conse- Vice-Presiden Otda, in his separate opinion, agreeswith
quencethatcompletionofiumy oneelementwouldreducethe the finding that no urgency existed to justify a grant of
possibilitiesofmodifyingotllerelements,aid concludesthat interinnmeasures-that is, in his view, a sufficientground
there is thus urgency,inasmuchas many of the activities forrejectingthe Finnish request-but regrets that the Court
involvedinthe project anticipatea finalclosingof theGreat didnotunderlinethe factthat suchagrantwouldinanycase
Finnish interestsand givingeffect to Finnishlights in the havedonelittletohelpFinland,inthatwould-becustomers
event of a judgmentin favourof Finland.Denmarkon the of itsshipyardswouldstillhavehad toweigh theriskof the
otherhandarguesthat,if tht:Court ruledinfavourofFinland Court'sfinallyrejectingFinland'scase.Infact,theonlyway
onthemerits,anyclaimbyFinlandcouldncitbedealtwithby theCourtcouldassisteithePr artyisbyhandingdownajudg-
an orderforrestitution,burcouldonlybe satisfiedby dam- ment ,asoon aspossible.
ages inasmuchas restitutionin kind wouldbe excessively Meanwhilethe Courthadbeenwell-advised towarn Den-
onerous. markthat, if it should losethecase, itcould not rely on the
Court's determiningthactompensationwouldbe anaccept-
The Court,while not at presentcalleduponto determine ablealternativetorestitution.
thecharacterofanydecisionwhichitmightmakt:onthemer-
its, observesthatinprincipleifitisestablishedthat thecon- Ithadnot howeverbeennecessarytosuggestat thisstage
structionof worksinvolvesan infringementof n legalright, thatFinlandconsiderpromotingreconsiderationof waysto
thepossibilitycannoatndshouldnotbeexcludedaprioriof a DanishStraits.ItwouldnowbesufficientforFinlandroutorec-
must be modifiedor dismlantled.The Ccburtadds that noor ognizetheobviouspossibilitythat in the eventof its losingthecaseitmighthavetoabandonormodifyanyplanstocon- Statesconstraineti,the Courtmust be concernedto satisfy
structdrill shipsandoilrigshigher than.metres. existing,thedegreeofaproofrequired dependingon the cir-imed
Another,inJudgeOdds view, superfl~louc somponentof cumstancesof tlx particularcase. InJudgeShahabuddeen's
theOrderwastheencouragementofnegotiationspriortothe view, the limited natuof therequired examinationdidnot
conclusionofthe case. Whilehewasnotopposedto anyini- createanysignific:anrtiskofprejudgment.
tiativethe Partiesmighttake in that sense,they needed the
Courttoresolvesomecentrallegal issues first.Indeed, their JudgeBroms,inhis separateopinion, stressesthe impor-
very readinesstonegotiateonabasisof la~wmadeit impera- tanceof Denmark'sassurance thatno physical hindranceto
tivetofinishthecase asspeedilyaspossiblle. 1994.This, combined withtheCourt'sresolveto finish theof
JudgeShahabuddeeni,n his separateopinion, refers to casewellbeforethen,hadenabledtheissueof urgencytobe
Denmark'ssubmissionthat, to justifyagrantofinterimmeas- seenin a newlightanddiminished the material groundfsor
ures, Finlandhad beenrequired,interaluz,to show aprima indicatingrovisionalmeasures. The Parties,speciallyFin-
facie case asto the existenceof the right soughtto pre- land,hadfurthermorereceived anadditionalguaranteeinthe
served.In his view, Finland hadindeedteen obligedto do emphasislaidby theCourt onthe normthata litigant State
so,inthesenseofdemonstratinga possibilliofexistenceof couldnotimproveitslegal positionvis-ci-vstsadversaryby
the specificrightof passage claimedinrezrpectofdrillships anyaction takenirrthecourseoftheproceedings.
andoilrigsofover 65metres' clearance height;itad infact JudgeBroms pints outthatFinland,intheeventofinjury
done so. toitsalleged right.,isseekingrestitution,notcompensation.
Hethereforeendorsesthe Court's decliningtoconfirmDen-
The Court in itsjurisprudencehad never pronounced on mark'scontentionthatcompensationmightbe anacceptable
thegeneral validityofthepropositioninherentinDenmark's alternativeshould1Finland win its case and restitution
submission,andJudgeShahabuddeenrecognized theneedto appears excessively onerous.He welcomes the Court's
avoid any appearanceof prejudging the merits of rights encouragementof negotiations and considers that these
claimed. mightwellfocus oa the technicalpossibilitiesof modifying
Nevertheless, giventhe consensual basis of the Court's the Danishprojectso as to accommodatean openingin the
jurisdiction,the exceptionalcharacterofhe procedureand fixed-bridgefortallerdrillshipsandoilrigs,to usetheirright
the potentiallyseriousimpact of provisional measureson offre passage.
Summary of the Order of 29 July 1991